I've finally seen Hobbit. I liked it, but it's nothing like Lord of the Rings. It had more action than LOTR movies, but Hobbit lacks the epic story that LOTR had. I liked many scenes, especially the beginning, but later it's chaotic. They decide to go to the mountain, there is a bit of Sauron, Elves, giants, Orcs, Ring and then they get rid of that Orc, dragon and the end. A bit messy. Jackson made fairly good story to look like second rate Lord of the Rings copy.

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

For Neeson there's actually probably quite a few out there who wouldn't know about Taken but would know about Star Wars or Batman...

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

For Neeson there's actually probably quite a few out there who wouldn't know about Taken but would know about Star Wars or Batman...

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

For Neeson there's actually probably quite a few out there who wouldn't know about Taken but would know about Star Wars or Batman...

To be fair I was thinking of Batman and Star Wars when I wrote that, as I do love the guy in both. He is Qui Gon Jin and Ra's Al Ghul to me, and Aslan as someone so wisely pointed out. It strikes me as odd that it took Taken to get people talking about him as much as they do now.

I might have to watch Schindler's List again soon.

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

You've obviously never watched "Darkman"...

Do I want to?

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

he was brilliant, although, disturbingly, Ralph Fiennes was unreal, very scary acting, ending was just moving, i mean it was hard not to shed a tear

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

You know they had to scale that character back? The real guy (Geoth) was such an absolute monster, they didn't think people would believe his actions could be real. Nazi Germany is just astounding. It's amazing to think you can get people that cruel, purely evil in that way. Ralph Fiennes is incredible in it though. He can portray that psychopathic wanton hatred very well. Yet the Academy thought Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive was better in the Best Supporting Actor category? I've seen the fugitive, it is actually also a very good film. But the acting... TLJ isn't putting on a performance anywhere near as powerful as Ralph Fiennes, and no where near as memorable.

And, like my statement about Neeson above, there are probably people who think Voldemort is the most evil character Ralph Fiennes has ever played...

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

You've obviously never watched "Darkman"...

Do I want to?

Avoid like the plague I'd say!

Duly noted, thank you good sir.

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

It's quite sad isn't it that Taken and Harry Potter are more well known for these actors than their actual stand out works. Ralph Fiennes and Neeson are incredible actors, and I rank Potter and Taken as some of their worst respectively. Well, Battleship is without doubt Neeson's worst. Why Liam... why...

You've obviously never watched "Darkman"...

Do I want to?

Avoid like the plague I'd say!

Duly noted, thank you good sir.

No problem. If you are brave enough (and want a good laugh), try the trailer:

I suppose it's a function of the first movie you saw them in, and the movie that you consider there best? I'd never consider Neeson to be a Jedi knight, or an evil ninja type, but the man who saved some Jews from the Nazis. Of course, neither is correct, but it is interesting how wildly this can vary.

For me, Mel Gibson will always be Riggs - but I wouldn't consider it odd for people to consider him William Wallace.Will Smith will always be Will Smith from the Fresh Prince though.Ed Norton is Derek Vinyard but Edward Furlong is John Connor.Arnie is the Terminator, but the T2 one, not the Terminator one.Michael Biehn is Kyle Reese, not Cpl. Hicks.Christian Bale is Howl.Tom Hardy is handsome bob, but Gerard Butler is King Leonidas.Robin Williams defies this - Genie, Sean MacGuire, Mrs Doubtfire, creepy guy in one hour photo, Mork - none of them come up in my mind when I think of Williams. Odd.

(That kind went six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but I was just trying to think of actors who I usually think of as being "that one really good role".

I suppose it's a function of the first movie you saw them in, and the movie that you consider there best? I'd never consider Neeson to be a Jedi knight, or an evil ninja type, but the man who saved some Jews from the Nazis. Of course, neither is correct, but it is interesting how wildly this can vary.

For me, Mel Gibson will always be Riggs - but I wouldn't consider it odd for people to consider him William Wallace.Will Smith will always be Will Smith from the Fresh Prince though.Ed Norton is Derek Vinyard but Edward Furlong is John Connor.Arnie is the Terminator, but the T2 one, not the Terminator one.Michael Biehn is Kyle Reese, not Cpl. Hicks.Christian Bale is Howl.Tom Hardy is handsome bob, but Gerard Butler is King Leonidas.Robin Williams defies this - Genie, Sean MacGuire, Mrs Doubtfire, creepy guy in one hour photo, Mork - none of them come up in my mind when I think of Williams. Odd.

(That kind went six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but I was just trying to think of actors who I usually think of as being "that one really good role".

Arnie is both - Terminator and Conan (first part, not the second. second is for kids)

Liam Neeson - Darkmen, Rob Roy.. no particular role for him in my case. Darkman - good movie (do remember when it was made, though).

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

I suppose it's a function of the first movie you saw them in, and the movie that you consider there best? I'd never consider Neeson to be a Jedi knight, or an evil ninja type, but the man who saved some Jews from the Nazis. Of course, neither is correct, but it is interesting how wildly this can vary.

For me, Mel Gibson will always be Riggs - but I wouldn't consider it odd for people to consider him William Wallace.Will Smith will always be Will Smith from the Fresh Prince though.Ed Norton is Derek Vinyard but Edward Furlong is John Connor.Arnie is the Terminator, but the T2 one, not the Terminator one.Michael Biehn is Kyle Reese, not Cpl. Hicks.Christian Bale is Howl.Tom Hardy is handsome bob, but Gerard Butler is King Leonidas.Robin Williams defies this - Genie, Sean MacGuire, Mrs Doubtfire, creepy guy in one hour photo, Mork - none of them come up in my mind when I think of Williams. Odd.

(That kind went six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but I was just trying to think of actors who I usually think of as being "that one really good role".

I don't think it's so much first film or best film but which film most defines that person. Which film is the single one role that stands out.

For some actors however, this never happens. They might have several defining roles which mean they aren't really known as one (e.g. Belushi is well known as both Bluto and Jake Blues).

In terms of this, I can see why you think of certain actors certain ways, but I think for me some of them have moved beyond that.

Will Smith - might be Fresh Prince to you, but to me he has done several defining roles that mean he's moved beyond just that kid from Philly... - e.g. Independence Day, Men In Black, Pursuit of Happyness...

Mel Gibson will always be Martin Riggs first and foremost. Michael Beihn gets Cpl Hicks Eddie Murphy is Axl Foley Will Smith is hard to split between Jay and Mike Lowery in Bad Boys. (Fresh Prince was never really my bag) Helena Bonham Carter. For all the cool stuff she's been in she always turns up as the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.

Reasonably enjoyable violent action film, but I felt like it was missing something. Quite a predictable and straight-forward plot and a bit too much emphasis on the violence if I'm going to be critical.

[–]chuckysnow 3143 points 2 days ago*I posted this in an entirely different place a month ago, but it's my idea for a fourth matrix film. relevant. no need to upvote.This one always bothered me- Matrix 4- Matrix Revealed. We find out that all of the humans are still in the Matrix. The Architect and Agent Smith both mention that the Matrix is an imperfect environment. Smith said that Humans rebelled at the ‘perfect’ matrix originally made for them. It turns out that the ‘perfect’ world is in fact the matrix that we’ve seen in the first three movies. It was never disassembled. The Zion level was created entirely for those minds that couldn’t handle the main level of the matrix. People like Neo and Morpheus who could see the glitches inherent in any large virtual world. The Zion level simply gave their mind an excuse to brush off any other inconsistencies they might notice.This answers many of the lingering issues with the first three films. Neo can control the sentries in the Zion level because they are still imaginary constructs within the machine he is attached to. It explains Zion itself, a city with an extremely high level of technology, considering it’s populated by refugees. It also explains the Nebuchadnezzar and the other craft that seems to operate outside the realm of established physics. While they showed similar hovercraft in the Animatrix, these could be explained away as being implanted memories. Implanted memories would also explain why nobody seemed to recall Zion being destroyed and rebuilt over and over.It would explain the basic flawed premise of the Zion level itself: The machines would need to supply a huge amount of energy to keep the humans alive, rather than use them as a power source as the Zionists believe. Even the evacuation tubes used to discard of humans that ‘wake up’ seem out of place. Why wouldn’t the machines simply recycle the body of anyone unplugged, instead of handing them over to the Zionists alive? It explains how Smith was able to enter the body of an actual human in the Zion level. We know that Smith is basically a virus, hijacking whatever body is convenient. Hijacking is a very common practice in the matrix level, and Smith seemed adept enough to jump levels. We know there was an error in his programming that allowed him to multiply. Apparently the same error allowed him to jump out of his designated environment.If you’ll remember, Cypher met with Smith. Cypher kept talking about how great the Matrix was to him. The food, the lifestyle were so enticing, so perfect, he was willing to betray his comrades to permanently relocate there, in his perfect world. The extra level also explains how cypher was able to get in and out of the matrix by himself. Remember that he was so good that he was mistaken for "the one" at one point. Apparently he has the ability to exit the matrix level at will.So the story picks up with all of humanity waking up into a desolate world. There isn’t enough food, shelter, really anything to go around. Riots break out everywhere. Ninety nine percent of the populace doesn’t care about so- called freedom, and they all want back in to the matrix. The Zionists are unable to get control of anything, and Neo faces a real crisis of Conscience. He alone re-enters the matrix in order to seek out the Architect and the Oracle, partly to ask their advice, partly to get away from everyone. He finds the Architect, but is unable to locate the Oracle. Smith arrives on the scene, though with no humans to hijack he is pretty ephemeral. Because he wants a body back, he lets Neo in on the Big Secret: Neo and Morpheus broke the Matrix (with no small amount of help from Smith Himself) and now everyone is being forced to live on Zion level because the damage is too widespread to fix properly.Neo jumps out to Zion level, where he soon finds the Oracle and learns he can indeed still fly and control things as if he was in the Matrix. What’s more, he is able to grant this power to others. It seems the Machines aren’t as interested in keeping this reality solid. Neo and his troupe learn that the machines are indeed willing to exist on a more limited level , and have plans on killing every human in existence.Knowing that Neo is at the heart of this newest catastrophe, the Sentries and other assorted dangers try to take Neo out. During the first movie, the Agents tried to shoot Neo in the Matrix level in order to kill him. Despite all the talk given to the rules of the matrix, it still seems a pretty convoluted way to kill someone. This time, He feels lighting going through him, and through sheer force of will he again keeps himself alive. It seems the machines are trying to kill him again, this time forever, but Neo is actually able to mentally stop them from throwing the switch. Reality starts to bend and distort as the machines do more and more to try and stop him. What safety protocols existed are giving way to 'root level' attempts to patch the matrix. Neo starts to level jump at will, being chased all the while by various enemies. He jumps to yet another white room, a level unto itself.It is at this point that Neo is finally able to break out into meatspace for real. He is the first human in centuries to actually wake up. He finds himself in a huge warehouse, still underground but nothing like the lightning towers shown in the first film. The maintenance machinery has no idea what to do with him, and he is able to finally escape.He gets to the surface, and feels the real Sun on his face for the first time. Aside from massive domes dotting the land, nature has reclaimed the planet. Presently, a robot emerges from the dome he has exited. It is humanoid, but looks like it has not been used in a very long time.It tells him that he has won. While the machines did not want him to wake up, It is not the intention of robots to destroy the humans, and perhaps now it is time to try to again live together. While they allowed wholesale brainwashing within the matrix, The robot says they cannot kill their creators, and if the matrix universe won’t work, then so be it. At this point we see the inside of the nearest dome, where pod after pod shows signs to waking up. The humans are being released. One by one they stumble into the light, using the pod covers as togas (PG13, of course) The robot says goodbye, good luck, then powers down.Our view rises into the sky, as we see dozens of domes, with people coming out of all of them. We rise higher and higher still, through the clouds and into space, until we come to see a vast orbiting spacecraft. Lights are coming on, engines are beginning to glow, and the craft is slowly sliding out of orbit.Our view zooms into the craft, through several bulkheads, into a huge interior filled with a singe massive computer. We zoom into the computer, down to the chips and circuits, until we see the familiar green cascading language of the original matrix. The Architect steps into view, slowly becoming more and more mechanical. He is greeted by another android. It seems that the robots have been building their own matrix in space. This makes sense considering that the only reason the first robots existed was to serve us in Meatspace.The Android asks the Architect if everything went according to plan. He says that we emerged earlier than was optimal, earlier than was planned, but that there are adequate food stocks in the domes for us until we get on our feet, and enough processed metals and materials to get humans on the road to civilization in short time. He also mentions that the climate engineering efforts have gotten the planet on a more secure footing for our re-introduction. It seems that far from enslaving us for these many years, the mechanical populace decided to protect us from ourselves until they could get the planet to recover. Now that we are back out in the real world, they are leaving Earth. Robots never needed a planet in the first place, and most robotic minds were simply uploaded into the mecha-matrix. The other Android, the ‘pilot’ says they are stopping at an asteroid for supplies, then heading into orbit around an outer planet, safe from solar fluctuations. From there they’ll keep an eye on humans, in case they are needed to help their creators again.TL; DR There was another level of the Matrix, and the robots weren’t totally trying to enslave us.EDIT, and now the repost I asked to not get upvoted surpassed the original post.EDIT 2- Yeah yeah, Neo is a mess and/or dead at the end of part three. He's better because sequel.

Django Unchained (maybe a few little spoilers so avoid if you don't want to know):

Wow, where to start... Stunning, slick, dark, gory, hilarious, there probably aren't enough adjectives to describe this film. Now I am a screaming Tarantino fangirl at heart so maybe take this praise with a pinch of salt but, for me, this movie was simply unbelievable.

Slavery and plantations are a dark chapter in history and Tarantino captures this masterfully. There are moments in the film that are very unpleasant and I genuinely struggled to watch (a slave being torn apart by dogs sticks out) and this all adds to how satisfying it is to see our protagonist Django (a freed slave) seek his revenge in the most gratuitous way possible (that's no bad thing!).

Speaking of Django, Jamie Foxx does a good job portraying him. Now I'm a bit of a filmy but I'll admit that I haven't seen that much of him (Goldigger is a pretty good song though ). I enjoyed him in Jarhead but I haven't seen Ray which he got a lot of plaudits for. Despite Django Unchained being a pretty over the top film, the passion and drive Foxx brings are very believable. Despite having top billing, he is not the star of the show though. The limelight is stolen by Christoph Waltz, playing his bounty hunter mentor. Seriously, I can't describe how brilliant Waltz is. He's laugh out loud funny when he needs to be, brutally violent in that very Tarantionesque, tongue in cheek manner, an all round fabulous performance. Obviously Waltz does have the writing to thank for a lot of this (which I've always considered Tarantino strongest aspect) but it's the little things he brings to the film that really make it. Just as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds would suck on his pipe in a certain, menacing way, here Waltz will twirl his beard or make some other gesture that makes you think "this dude means business".

Waltz is not the only person to turn in a superb performance though. Leo di Caprio plays a fabulously camp (he drinks out of a coconut with an umbrella in it forchristsakes!) yet sinister Francophile plantation owner while Samuel L Jackson continues his inexorable love affair with Tarantino's movies, playing a down right creepy "uncle Tom" head of di Caprio's slave household who, by the conclusion, you really come to despise due to the embracing of his master's philosophy of brutality. The role has equal measures of uncomfortableness and hilarity for the audience, with, on a number of occasions, Tarantino just letting Samuel L be Samuel L in that badass way he does.

Now, Django Unchained is a long film, a smidgen under 3 hours, but that's not to say it gets dull (*cough* Les Mis *cough*). The pacing is perfect. Just when you think you can switch off, an outbreak of violence brings you crashing back down to earth. The build up to the denouement (I use that term loosely as there is still maybe half an hour, forty minutes of the film left at this point) is ridiculously tense and a lot of that come down to the fore mentioned brilliant writing. You know fairy cakes's going to go down, you just don't know when, real edge of the seat stuff.

There's many more things I could go into (Jonah Hill's hilarious cameo as a leader of a calamitous KKK posse, di Caprios's character's downright weird relationship with his sister are examples) but I want to keep this relatively brief. Go and see it. I dare you, I double dare you not to like it.

As an aside, there something I'd like to address. In light of recent events, violence in the media has come under an intense spotlight. This film has been faced with critics saying it "desensitises" viewers to violence. Personally I think nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of the "violence" on show in this movie is nothing like real life violence. The gun fights are over the top, they're stylised, and, while not slapstick, they are, at times, pretty funny (a character flying backwards spectacularly when shot and gallons of fake blood spurting everywhere). Then again, the more realistic scenes of violence, the slave beatings for example, are, as previously mentioned, horrible to watch. You are not desensitised to the suffering you are seeing, you feel it yourself and, I tell you, it isn't pleasant or enjoyable in any sense.

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

BritishDriverSupporter (andDanielRicciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon

Last edited by Pedrosa_4_Ever on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I went to watch The Impossible last week and it was brilliantly acted and very moving. I didn't cry as much as I thought I would but it realistically portrayed how brutal it must've been to have been caught up in the tsunami.

I did think it should have been a 15 certificate though..there were some quite horrific injury scenes

Basterds got dull at points, painfully so sometimes. If I could sum it up, it would be Christoph Waltz/Melanie Laurent (she so pwetty too ) stuff = good, Brad Pitt/Basterds stuff = bad (apart from the bar scene). I was never bored in Django.

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

Watched Django Unchained yesterday and enjoyed it. One thing struck me though; though Tarantino isn't exactly prolific from a directing standpoint, his career has really turned on its heels. He's gone from quite gritty, story driven, deliberate thrillers to super slick, ultra violent, over stylised comic book romps. Not necessarily a bad thing but when Natural Born Killers came out, I remember he was really quite disgusted with what Oliver Stone did with his screenplay. Yet ever since Kill Bill he's been pretty much aping that kind of style.

Whilst all his films have retained that unique humour and crisp dialogue from his early years, I can't help feel that he'd better serve himself and his audience by leaving the Kill Bill esque style in the past. Inglorious Basterds was extremely good in places. Yet Brad Pitt and the Basterds themselves, I thought, kind of brought the film down overall because they were quite preposterous and didn't fit in with the oppressive tension and suspense the rest of the film spent a long time creating. The cinema scene at the end, though amusing, was a bit of a let down overall.

Not that any of his past few films have been bad, but i'd like to see him revert to his previous style (or at least ditch the comic book imagery), which ironically, was a bit more grown up than it is now.

Watched Django Unchained yesterday and enjoyed it. One thing struck me though; though Tarantino isn't exactly prolific from a directing standpoint, his career has really turned on its heels. He's gone from quite gritty, story driven, deliberate thrillers to super slick, ultra violent, over stylised comic book romps. Not necessarily a bad thing but when Natural Born Killers came out, I remember he was really quite disgusted with what Oliver Stone did with his screenplay. Yet ever since Kill Bill he's been pretty much aping that kind of style.

Whilst all his films have retained that unique humour and crisp dialogue from his early years, I can't help feel that he'd better serve himself and his audience by leaving the Kill Bill esque style in the past. Inglorious Basterds was extremely good in places. Yet Brad Pitt and the Basterds themselves, I thought, kind of brought the film down overall because they were quite preposterous and didn't fit in with the oppressive tension and suspense the rest of the film spent a long time creating. The cinema scene at the end, though amusing, was a bit of a let down overall.

Not that any of his past few films have been bad, but i'd like to see him revert to his previous style (or at least ditch the comic book imagery), which ironically, was a bit more grown up than it is now.

The Keep. Old good supernatural horror. Nothing extra special, but like a fresh air in modern timesGreat music!

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man